An African nation is calling for Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., to be extradited after Vice President JD Vance claimed during an interview that the lawmaker committed immigration fraud.

The Republic of Somaliland, a partially recognized state in the Horn of Africa, reacted in a post on X to the claim that Vance made in a podcast interview with conservative commentator Benny Johnson.

“Deportation? Please you’re just sending the princess back to her kingdom. Extradition? Say the word …” the post read.

In the interview, Vance said he has spoken with White House immigration advisor Stephen Miller about potential legal action against Omar, saying, “We think Ilhan Omar definitely committed immigration fraud against the United States of America.”

TRUMP ACCUSES TIM WALZ AND ILHAN OMAR OF USING ICE PROTESTS TO DISTRACT FROM MASSIVE STATE FRAUD

“We’re trying to look at what the remedies are,” Vance said. “That’s the thing that we’re trying to figure out is what are the legal remedies now that we know that she’s committed immigration fraud — how do you go after her, how do you investigate her, how do you actually do the thing, how do you build a case necessary to get some justice for the American people?”

Omar has denied accusations from President Donald Trump and the White House that she married her brother to enter the United States. In December, she called the accusations “bigoted lies,” writing on social media that Trump was obsessed with her.

“He needs serious help,” Omar wrote on X at the time. “Since he has no economic policies to tout, he’s resorting to regurgitating bigoted lies instead.”

Omar’s Chief of Staff, Connor McNutt, told Fox News Digital in an emailed statement that the vice president’s claim is a “ridiculous lie.”

“This is rich coming from someone who literally said they were willing to ‘create stories’ to redirect the media,” the statement said. “This is a ridiculous lie and desperate attempt to distract from the pedophile protection party’s unpopular war of choice, increasing gas prices, and rapidly dropping polling numbers.”

COMER PROBES SUDDEN WEALTH JUMP TIED TO ILHAN OMAR’S HUSBAND, EYES LINK TO MINNESOTA FRAUD

Somaliland’s post about Omar, who is from Somalia, comes amid criticism over her opposition to the recognition of an independent Somaliland and her defense of Somalia’s territorial claims.

Somaliland has acted as a self-governing territory since 1991, maintaining internal security and building its own democratic institutions.

While most in the international community, including the U.S., do not recognize Somaliland as an independent country, Israel became the first U.N. member state to recognize the self-declared state.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced last year that Israel had established full diplomatic relations with Somaliland, describing the move as being in the spirit of the United States-brokered Abraham Accords.

Fox News Digital’s Emma Bussey contributed to this report.

<!–>

The Supreme Court is poised to answer a fundamental constitutional question largely ignored for more than a century: Who qualifies as an American citizen?

The justices on Wednesday will hold oral arguments to review President Donald Trump’s efforts to limit birthright citizenship in the U.S., a landmark case with the potential to upend the lives of millions of Americans and lawful residents.

At issue is the executive order the president signed on his first day back in office, which would end automatic citizenship for nearly all persons born in the U.S. to undocumented parents, or parents with lawful temporary status in the country — a seismic legal, political, and social shift that critics note would break with more than 150 years of legal precedent. 

A ruling is expected within three months, but until then, Trump’s plans remain on hold.

HOW TO MAKE PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION PAUSE STICK IN COURT

The case is the fourth of a five-part series of appeals the Supreme Court will consider this term on the merits of Trump’s sweeping executive agenda.

The nine-member bench has already tossed out his reciprocal tariffs on most other countries, which relied on an economic emergency law. A separate dispute over ending protections for migrants with temporary protected status will be argued later in April.

Still pending are rulings on the president’s ability to fire members of independent agencies, including Federal Reserve governors.

But the administration has been winning most of the emergency appeals at the Supreme Court since Trump took office again, which dealt only with whether challenged policies could go into effect temporarily, while the issues play out in the lower courts – including immigration, federal spending cuts, workforce reductions and transgender people in the military.

Constitutional Meaning

Trump’s order now before the high court for final review would reinterpret the 14th Amendment, which states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” — a provision the president argues has been misinterpreted.

Executive Order 14160, entitled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” would deny it to those born after Feb. 19, 2025, whose parents are illegal immigrants, or those who were here legally but on temporary non-immigrant visas.

And it bans federal agencies from issuing or accepting documents recognizing citizenship for those children.

“The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” says part of the order. “But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.”

A Supreme Court ruling on the issue could have sweeping national implications for an issue Trump officials argue is a crucial component of his hardline immigration agenda, which has become a defining feature of his second White House term.

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP SUPPORTERS GET THE LAW WRONG BY IGNORING OBVIOUS EVIDENCE

In its high court petition, the Trump Justice Department said all lower court decisions handed down last year striking down the executive order had relied on a “mistaken view” with potentially “destructive consequences.”

“The lower courts’ decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration in a manner that undermines our border security,” said John Sauer, U.S. solicitor general, who will make the case in person at oral arguments.

“Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people,” he added.

Opponents argue the effort is unconstitutional and “unprecedented,” and would threaten some 150,000 children in the U.S. born annually to parents of noncitizens, and an estimated 4.6 million American-born children under 18 who are living with an undocumented immigrant parent, according to data from the Pew Research Center.

Separate coalitions of about two dozen states, along with immigrant rights groups and private individuals — including several pregnant women in Maryland — had filed a class-action lawsuit.

The plaintiffs — including those originally from Taiwan and Brazil — seek to preserve access to citizenship-related benefits, including Social Security, SNAP and Medicaid.

To date, no court has sided with the Trump administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and blocked the order from taking force.

The ACLU and other immigrant advocacy groups in the U.S., have accused Trump of attempting to “unilaterally rewrite the 14th Amendment.”

“The federal courts have unanimously held that President Trump’s executive order is contrary to the Constitution, a Supreme Court decision from 1898, and a law enacted by Congress,” said ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang, who will argue for the plaintiffs in the courtroom session. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”

The Arguments

Much of the public session is expected to focus on a phrase in the Constitution that the government asserts limits the citizenship right.

“The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’” said Trump’s original order, which the Justice Department essentially interprets as “being subject to U.S. law” — which would give the government discretion to exclude those whose parents are in the country illegally.

But lawyers for the plaintiffs say a century-old Supreme Court ruling affirmed the phrase only excluded automatic citizenship to children born to foreign diplomats or hostile forces.

Supporters of a broad, traditional interpretation point to the 14th Amendment’s origins — passed after the Civil War to end the practice of excluding individuals of African descent, including slaves and free persons, from ever becoming U.S. citizens.

TRUMP ADMIN PUTS KEY BIDEN-ERA IMMIGRATION POLICY ON NOTICE: ‘UNSUSTAINABLE CYCLE’

Thirty-one years after its enactment, the Supreme Court for the first time decided the status of children born in the U.S. to alien parents, creating the precedent of how the citizenship clause would be applied in future cases.

Plaintiff Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco and became a cook, but was subject to the Chinese Exclusion Act and denied reentry to the U-S after a trip abroad.

In its landmark ruling, the high court concluded, “A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States… becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.”

The Impact

A recent Pew Research poll asked Americans whether they wanted children of immigrants, temporary immigrants or any immigrants lawfully present in the United States to be citizens, and 94% said yes.

Critics of the administration’s plans fear a chaotic and unfair patchwork of enforcement that would apply in some states and not others, some families and not others, and that it could be sweeping in scope.

“Under the executive order, that child is born a noncitizen,” Amanda Frost, director of the Immigration, Migration and Human Rights Program at the University of Virginia School of Law, “denied all the benefits and privileges of citizenship and theoretically deportable on day one of their life. And then every single American family having a child will now have to prove their status before that child is considered a citizen by the U.S. government. And that doesn’t matter if they go back to the Mayflower. That’s what everyone will have to prove going forward.”

But immigration reform advocates point to what they call abuses in the system.

JUSTICE JACKSON AUTHORS UNANIMOUS SCOTUS OPINION HANDING TRUMP AN IMMIGRATION WIN

“That is the exploitation of America’s birthright citizenship policy… particularly those by nationals of the People’s Republic of China,” Peter Schweizer, president of the Government Accountability Institute. “Birth tourism is essentially an industry that provides concierge service at every step of the way for a foreign national, in this case China, to pay the firm roughly $100,000, they will transport them to the United States, arrange medical care, arrange citizenship for the child,” he added. “And as soon as the child is old enough to travel, they will return back to China.”

In oral arguments last May when the Supreme Court first looked at Trump’s birthright citizenship order, many on the bench were skeptical of the Trump administration.

The government’s position “makes no sense whatsoever,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, saying it could leave some children “stateless.”

“So as far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents,” added Sotomayor. “And you are claiming that not just the Supreme Court, that both the Supreme Court and no lower court can stop an executive from universally violating those holdings by this court.” 

“On the day after it goes into effect — it’s just a very practical question of how it’s going to work,” asked Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?” when it comes to determining citizenship on the birth certificate.

“I don’t think they do anything different,” replied Sauer. “What the executive order says in Section Two is that federal officials do not accept documents that have the wrong designation of citizenship from people who are subject to the executive order.”

“How are they going to know that?” asked Kavanaugh, shaking his head.  

The case is Trump v. Barbara (25-365), a pseudonym for a Honduran citizen who fears for her and her family’s safety. Her child was born in the U.S. in October, months after she joined the lawsuit as the named plaintiff.

<!–>

Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, intended to hit President Donald Trump amid nationwide “no kings” protests, but instead Republicans argued her comment admits the flimsy case being made.

“Donald Trump is not, never will be, and has never been a king. #NoKings,” Hirono’s Saturday morning X post read as left-wing protesters marched in various anti-Trump demonstrations.

The remarks landed with rare agreement from figures on the right, though.

“So you agree – you think your ‘no kings’ rallies are stupid…,” replied Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, who once backed Trump’s 2024 Republican primary opposition from Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

JANE FONDA WARNS AMERICA FACES ‘EXISTENTIAL’ CRISIS AS SHE URGES TURNOUT AT ‘NO KINGS’ PROTESTS

“Roger that!” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, wrote on X.

Social media reacted in wild agreement even from the right, with some noting that the 2024 November election was a “no kings” protest and some referencing Independence Day as America’s true “no kings” protest.

NANCY PELOSI SWIPES AT TRUMP, ACCUSING HIM OF CROWNING HIMSELF AS ‘KING’

One post even noted the irony of “no kings” protests in London, where the United Kingdom actually has a king.

More than 3,200 events had been planned in all 50 states, after the two previous nationwide events attracted millions of participants.

Large rallies took place in New York, Dallas, Philadelphia and Washington, but two-thirds of “no kings” events were happening outside major cities, a nearly 40% jump for smaller communities from the movement’s first mobilization last June, organizers said.

LEADER SCALISE: DEMOCRATS CHEER ‘NO KINGS’ PROTESTS, BUT LET SHUTDOWN DEVASTATE FAMILIES

Video and photos shared on social media showed protesters marching for “no kings,” while waving red flags associated with communist dictatorships.

“These Hate America Rallies are where the far-left’s most violent, deranged fantasies get a microphone and House Democrats get their marching orders,” National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Mike Marinella wrote in a statement Saturday.

“Voters will punish Democrats for gleefully standing shouder-to-shoulder with radicals who call for assassinations and violence.”

JOHN CUSACK TELLS TRUMP TO ‘GO TO HELL’ AT CHICAGO ‘NO KINGS’ PROTEST

Trump has long rebuked the “no kings” protest mantra.

“I’m not a king — I work my a– off to make America great,” Trump said during last October’s congressional recess protests. “That’s the difference.”

Trump rebuked the protests as “small, crazy, and totally out of touch with real Americans.”

CHIP ROY SAYS DEMOCRATIC PARTY TAKING ITS ‘DYING BREATHS’

Hirono was not the only Democratic figure targeted for social media trolling Saturday. The RNC Research X account shared video of Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., getting emotional during a “no kings” rally speech, rebuking America as no beacon of hope but “authoritarianism.”

‘NO KINGS’ PROTESTS LARGELY COMPRISED OF PEOPLE FROM ONE DEMOGRAPHIC: EXPERTS

Omar and Minnesota’s Democratic Gov. Tim Walz have been under fire for allegations of fraud among the Somali community in their state, and Vice President JD Vance last week alleged to have evidence that Omar violated immigration law.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, replied to a Fox News investigation that revealed “no kings” protests were backed by a network of 500 organizations, finding many tied to socialist and communist groups.

“Lefty billionaires & communists,” Cruz wrote. “There’s a shock….”

The first “no kings” event, on Trump’s birthday, June 14, last year, drew an estimated 4 million to 6 million people across roughly 2,100 sites nationwide. The second mobilization in October involved an estimated 7 million participants in more than 2,700 cities, according to a crowdsourcing analysis published by prominent data journalist G. Elliott Morris.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

<!–>

FIRST ON FOX: One of the nation’s most prominent railroad unions is facing new scrutiny after a watchdog report alleged its leadership is quietly working against the political views of its members who support President Donald Trump’s agenda.

The report, released by the American Accountability Foundation (AAF), claims the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), one of the nation’s oldest labor unions, is run by leaders who are endorsing and promoting Democratic policies and candidates despite a membership base that data suggests largely supports the president.

The report, which alleges the union “betrayed” its MAGA members, points to the union’s endorsement of the Harris-Walz ticket in the 2024 election cycle, as well as its ties to prominent Democrats, including Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and former Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, who is running for Senate again.

While BLET has touted Republicans in recent years, including earlier this year when it applauded Vice President JD Vance and the bipartisan reintroduction of the Railway Safety Act (RSA), the report highlights repeated criticism of Trump-era policies, including transportation regulations, immigration enforcement and the conservative-backed Project 2025 agenda, alongside praise for the policies of the Biden administration.

WORKERS SAY ‘I LIKE UNIONS, I JUST DON’T LIKE MY UNION’ — HERE’S WHAT THEY’RE DISCOVERING

A review of the union’s social media account by AAF shows numerous examples of the union opposing various moves by the first Trump administration during his presidential campaign against incumbent Joe Biden, which the report describes as evidence of “woke leadership.”

“In the lead-up to the 2024 election, BLET issued 14 tweets that criticized the actions of the first Trump administration while praising the Biden administration’s railroad policies,” the report says. “The messaging was clearly intended to skew union members toward the Democratic presidential ticket. In these tweets, they attacked nearly every major Trump-era rail policy decision while framing the Biden administration’s actions positively.”

The union’s public support of Democrats had a financial angle as well, as the report states that the organization spent more than $26 million on political activity in recent years, with the vast majority supporting Democratic candidates and causes to a degree that AAF referred to as “shocking.”

According to the report, 99% of the union’s party committee donations went to Democrats.

“For example, in the 2016 cycle, BLET donated $15,000 to the DNC when they were the nexus for GOTV for the Hillary Clinton campaign but never donated a dollar to the RNC,” the report says. “In 2024, long after it had become clear that industrial union membership was strongly behind President Trump, the BLET leadership still hadn’t gotten the message, making 24 different donations to Democrat party committees for a total of $53,400 and a mere two donations to Republican committees for a spare $2000.”

LEAKED TEACHERS’ UNION K-12 TRAINING PRESENTATION RAILS AGAINST TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, RED STATES

According to the report, the divide reflects a broader shift in American politics, with blue-collar workers increasingly backing Trump while union leadership remains entrenched in traditional left-leaning positions.

The report goes beyond the union’s spending on politics and delves into what it calls “waste and abuse” in the form of millions of dollars of member dues being shelled out for travel, hotels and “swag.”

“While it’s bad enough that BLET spent over $5,000,000 on hotels and conferences, even more concerning is the fact that the union spent over $2,000,000 on casinos and resorts alone,” the report says. “The union appears more concerned with staying at entertaining destination resorts than they do being thrifty with their members’ dues.”

Recent polling shows that labor unions like BLET consist of a large number of workers who support Trump, including Teamsters polling that shows a 60/40 breakdown in favor of Trump and exit polling from the 2024 election that shows working-class voters without a college degree went 56% for Trump and 42% for Harris. 

The report also points to leadership compensation as part of the disconnect, noting multiple top officials earning over $200,000 annually, with the union president and vice president each making more than $300,000.

“The men pulling America’s freight voted for President Trump because they believe in secure borders and putting American workers first,” AAF President Tom Jones said in a statement to Fox News Digital.

“But their union bosses are busy living large on member dues and carrying water for the Left. They’ve turned a blue-collar brotherhood into a woke political machine that’s doing everything it can against the Trump-Vance agenda, and likewise, against everyday railroad workers. Every BLET member should be asking where their hard-earned dollars are really going.” 

In a statement to Fox News Digital, a BLET spokesperson said: “We do not comment on false press releases by dark money groups who have no accountability to the truth.”

<!–>